Perry v. United States, 24-CM-1016

Background

Perry was charged with two counts of simple assault after a group attack on Walton and Reynolds outside the U Street Metro station. 1
The government introduced an Instagram video of the melee and argued Perry was the blonde-braided instigator shown in it. 2
Walton identified Perry in court after viewing the video, and the trial court convicted Perry of both assaults. 3
The court also ordered Perry to pay $6,119.98 in restitution for Walton’s unpaid medical bills and lost wages. 4
Perry appealed, challenging the video’s admission, Walton’s in-court identification, and the restitution order. 5

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Instagram video was properly admitted 6	Perry said it lacked authentication, violated best evidence and hearsay rules, and implicated confrontation rights.	The government said Walton authenticated it and the remaining objections lacked merit.	Admission was proper; no reversible error. 7
Whether Walton could identify Perry in court 8	Perry argued the identification usurped the factfinder and was suggestive and unreliable.	The government said Walton had personal knowledge and the identification was reliable.	The identification was permissible; no plain error. 9
Whether restitution was erroneous 10	Perry argued the court used an improper uniform policy and lacked documentation for the amount.	The government said the court individualized the award and Perry did not renew her objection.	The restitution order was not plainly erroneous. 11

Key Cases Cited

Becton v. United States, 348 A.3d 23 (D.C. 2025) (abuse-of-discretion review for preserved evidentiary error 12)
(Tyrell) Johnson v. United States, 232 A.3d 156 (D.C. 2020) (plain-error review for unpreserved claims 13)
Ransom v. United States, 322 A.3d 521 (D.C. 2024) (authentication requires a reasonable possibility the evidence is what it purports to be 14)
(Carlos) Johnson v. United States, 290 A.3d 500 (D.C. 2023) (video evidence may be authenticated by a witness with firsthand knowledge 15)
Callaham v. United States, 268 A.3d 833 (D.C. 2022) (best-evidence rule and witness personal-knowledge principles 16)
Holmon v. District of Columbia, 202 A.3d 512 (D.C. 2019) (defines hearsay and statement 17)
Little v. United States, 613 A.2d 880 (D.C. 1992) (defines hearsay 18)
Holmes v. United States, 92 A.3d 328 (D.C. 2014) (bare images generally do not assert anything 19)
McRoy v. United States, 106 A.3d 1051 (D.C. 2015) (recordings can contain hearsay statements 20)
Carrington v. District of Columbia, 77 A.3d 999 (D.C. 2013) (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial statements absent prior cross-examination 21)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial statements require confrontation 22)
Green v. United States, 580 A.2d 1325 (D.C. 1990) (in-court identifications permitted if sufficiently reliable 23)
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1972) (totality-of-the-circumstances reliability factors 24)
Morales v. United States, 248 A.3d 161 (D.C. 2021) (applies Biggers reliability inquiry 25)
Briscoe v. United States, 181 A.3d 651 (D.C. 2018) (plain-error review of unpreserved sentencing objections 26)
In re N.G., 9 A.3d 478 (D.C. 2010) (trial courts have broad discretion to impose restitution with a factual basis 27)
Lindsay v. United States, 84 A.3d 50 (D.C. 2014) (sentencing should not follow a categorical uniform policy 28)
Thorne v. United States, 46 A.3d 1085 (D.C. 2012) (sentence should reflect an individuated judgment 29)
Chew v. United States, 314 A.3d 80 (D.C. 2024) (states the plain-error standard 30)
Comford v. United States, 947 A.2d 1181 (D.C. 2008) (objections must be made with reasonable specificity 31)
Hunter v. United States, 606 A.2d 139 (D.C. 1992) (trial judge must be fairly apprised of the objection 32)